Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 21:34:45 +1100 (EST) From: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au> To: dufault@hda.com (Peter Dufault) Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, bde@zeta.org.au Subject: Re: more about yield() versus sched_yield() Message-ID: <199901311034.VAA01602@cimlogic.com.au> In-Reply-To: <199901311022.FAA21322@hda.hda.com> from Peter Dufault at "Jan 31, 1999 5:22: 3 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Dufault wrote: > > I've got a synch_yield() in kern_synch and a call into it from yield() > > in kern_thread that duplicates the yield() behavior for the non-RTPRIO, > > non-sched_yield() condition. synch_yield() also KASSERTS > > that p == curproc since nothing else makes sense. > > While we're discussing yield here's a question. > > The difference between yield() and sched_yield() is that yield unconditionally > yields while sched_yield() won't if you are the highest priority process > and the only process in your run queue. Does anyone know the > reuirements on yield() and would it continue to function for us if > it worked the same as sched_yield()? FWIW, the yield syscall is _not_ built into libc, so I doubt there will be anything that actually uses it. I think you should just keep sched_yield(). -- John Birrell - jb@cimlogic.com.au; jb@freebsd.org http://www.cimlogic.com.au/ CIMlogic Pty Ltd, GPO Box 117A, Melbourne Vic 3001, Australia +61 418 353 137 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901311034.VAA01602>